SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

M/S AMBEY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS,SANGURUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S ANAND ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SANGURUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S AMAR CONTRUCTION AND ENGINEER ,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S HIND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS CONTRCTORS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S HIMALYAN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S CHENAB CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S OMKAR ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S MAA BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S OM CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries